Golosov (2015) hypothesizes that district magnitude is
[ Select ]
negatively
positively
related to district-level fragmentation (H2), and that federalism is
[ Select ]
negatively
positively
related to party system fragmentation (H6).

Question

Golosov (2015) hypothesizes that district magnitude is 
[ Select ]
negatively
positively
 related to district-level fragmentation (H2), and that federalism is 
[ Select ]
negatively
positively
 related to party system fragmentation (H6).

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

In Golosov (2015), the relation between district magnitude and district-level fragmentation is a central empirical question, so we should evaluate the two possible directions.
Option 1 (district magnitude): negatively related to district-level fragmentation would imply that larger districts reduce fragmentation, while positively related would imply that larger districts increase fragmentation by allowing more parties to gain seat shares. A common expectation in electoral studies is that higher district magnitudes ease the entry or survival of more parties, increasing fragmentation, whereas very small districts tend to favor two-party systems. Therefore, a positive relationship is more consistent with the idea that larger districts enable more parties to cross electoral thresholds and compete, contributing to greater fragmentation.
Option 2 (federalism and party system fragmentation): negatively related would suggest that greater federal structure reduces overall party system fragmentation, while positively related would suggest that more federalism coincides with more parties across the system. The logic for a positive link is that federal systems often contain multi-level governance with regional parties, asymmetries in party competition, and differentiated regional interests that can spill over into the national party system, thereby increasing fragmentation. A negative relationship would be harder to reconcile with these dynamics, as federal arrangements frequently support or reflect diverse regional demands rather than suppress them.
When evaluating the two possible directions for each case, the positive direction for district magnitude aligns with the standard mechanism where larger districts accommodate more parties and increase fragmentation. For federalism and party system fragmentation, the positive link is plausible due to the introduction of regional political cleavages and party differentiation across regions, which can translate into a more plural national party landscape.
If one were to consider the negative alternatives, it would require additional assumptions (e.g., that larger districts somehow consolidate preferences into fewer parties, or that federalism suppresses cross-regional party competition), which are not the typical or most straightforward interpretations in standard fragmentation literature. Still, it is important to acknowledge that empirical contexts can yield nuances and exceptions, and the hypotheses should be tested with data rather than assumed.
In summary, the reasonable expectation is that district magnitude has a positive relationship with district-level fragmentation, and that federalism has a positive relationship with party system fragmentation, given the ways in which larger electoral districts and federal structures tend to permit, reflect, or encourage a broader party landscape across levels of governance.

2261 PS 1361 SEC1000 Week 8: Party System Fragmentation

Golosov (2015) hypothesizes that district magnitude is [ Select ] negatively positively related to district-level fragmentation (H2), and that federalism is [ Select ] negatively positively related to party system fragmentation (H6).

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In addition to the basic model of party-system fragmentation, what variable does Coppedge (1997) use to explain the fragmentation in Latin America? (hint: check p. 157 and 177)

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler